Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday September 19, 2010 @06:09PM
from the reconstruct-your-amnesia dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Just a day after adding a new game and a handful of promotions, GOG.com, a seller of classic games in a DRM-free format, has closed shop, leaving only a sparse placeholder page and a mention on Twitter that 'sometimes it's really hard being DRM-free... hard to keep things the way they are and keep management and publishers happy.' The site mentions that games purchased in the past will become accessible for downloading within the week, but there is no word on how long this will continue to be possible."
The announcement on the site's front page says, in part, "This doesn't mean the idea behind GOG.com is gone forever. We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await."

Not because of the no DRM thing, but because all they sold was old games. Those are going to have to be budget priced, of course, and are just not as popular. They probably had trouble making much money since they didn't make a whole lot each sale (at least half, maybe more, of the price goes to the publisher) and there just weren't the numbers. this is particularity true since Impulse and Steam, the big download services, do old games too. You can find a lot of old title on them, and they add more all the time. More people will shop from them, since they already have an account.

in the age of internet and digital downloads, the middleman, publisher, is the problem. not needed anymore, yet they still introduce problems into the production to consumer sequence, right in the middle. actually, in some sectors, they totally control entire sequence.

Indeed. I'm glad that I've been keeping my own backups of my games. They are planning on giving some option for those that purchased, but still. These sorts of things tend to make it harder for whoever tries this next to gain any customer trust.

I'm a bit curious as to the timing, in the middle of their weekly sale.

No, you don't get it. You're obviously a minority in the bigger picture.

You have to consider the fact that publishers have a lot of experience with producing games, whereas the only experience you have is playing them. If publishers were experiencing the same behavior from everyone as they are from you then they'd continue to keep this DRM model alive. However, they're obviously not because they're shutting it down.

How do you know your friends aren't all laughing behind your back because you're the only sucker actually buying the game ?

I bought the Fallout games from them, real sad that they're gone now (or at least, appear to be gone).

The value they added wasn't just removing DRM, but in also making the old games compatible with new operating systems. It's a pain in the ass for me to get some of my older games to work, and I'm more than willing to pay $5 to let someone else do it for me.

There's no "stunt" to this. It says right in their notice that the site is ending in its "current form" and that it will eventually return. Which contrasts with Joystiq's sensationalist headline that GOG "shuts down" (also Slashdot's).

What CD Projekt actually said in the forum was that posting the notice on the current site (which IS closed and isn't just going to be reactivated) was part of a process to raise awareness of the new site that will take its place, which is pretty plain from the notice that they posted, had anyone bothered to actually read it.

Marketing yes, stunt no. This isn't Death (and Return) of Superman. They said right up front what was going to happen. Just because people glossed over the text and rushed to print a headline, well, that kind of makes the editors at Joystiq (and Slashdot) out to look like tools. Don't try to shift blame to CD Projekt for this.

Having purchased games from both GOG and Steam, I'd pick GOG over Steam any day. I'd argue that Steam made it more complicated, if only because they force you to install and use a client. And then it forces me to download the game again if I choose to uninstall it from my HD. GOG was a simple download and install, always. I never had to download the game again after uninstalling it, I could just burn it to DVD as is, or move it to another HD.

If you're right GOG is gone. Adding DRM negates the advantage of buying from them.

Indeed: adding DRM would just make them another Steam competitor... in which case, why not just buy from Steam? OK, they could have better prices, but I usually only buy Steam games when they're on sale anyway.

I *could* pirate games, but I do not because it is completely dishonest. If I did any significant degree of illegal copying, I to not think that I could live with myself and would suffer guilt over the shut-down of a great site like GOG.com.

I will miss the site. I got some of their freebies, and purchased several games (most of which I have not even had the time to play yet).

Good-bye GOG.com. You were a good friend, and my first stop for games when I was bored. You will be missed. I did not give you too much money (having a wife and kids limits gaming time), but you were worth every penny that I spent.

And to any other businesses that want to follow-up with a similar business model: I am honest, and I am willing to pay for my games -- and I hate DRM.

If it had been Steam that closed down like this, you'd be royally F'd in the A for all the games you bought. However, the GoG games still run for people that bought them (assuming you had already downloaded them.)

yeah this smells fishy. I have been buying from them for nearly a year, and have bought more games from them than I've bought in the past 3 years because they were cheap, easy to use, and DRM free. Well it looks like I'll be keeping all my GOG installers on a portable drive just in case one of my backup discs gets scratched. man this fucking sucks!

Uh...I do. The vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and are just trying to break even.

Which is why you have given up on paying for broadband (you're typing this at the library, right?), don't have a cell phone, don't drink alchohol or eat out, only have one pair of shoes, no TV, no camera, don't by games or music or go to movies, and work a second job evenings and weekends so that you can save up some money, right?

Which is why is it so widely reported that kids out of high school and college can't find jobs, and older people who have been fired cannot find replacement employment. Too many people have the mentality that profit is an entitlement and the government has a primary responsibility not just to provide opportunity, but to fullfil this entitlement.

Sometimes one has to work for the future instead of for immediate gain. Sometime there will be no return on investment for the first few years. Sometimes an owner is not going to be able to extract all revenue from a firm, sometimes it will be required to invest most of the revenue back into the firm.

I have had to live on very little income while investing in my future. Sure, like the tea baggers, I could have complained that the government was trying to steal from me, or take away my entitlements. I could have marched on washington instead of try to better myself and create income sources to support myself. But I created work and lived on what I could earn.

So no, one does not go into bussiness just to make money back. Sometimes one loses all the money, but at least one has tried instead of being one of those pussy whiners.

I don't think they provided enough of a value-add above and beyond the (IMHO very good) value they offered on the games. For example, DRM-free was great, and the price was right, but they didn't really play up the fact that purchasing through them rather than torrenting provided a *legal* copy to the purchaser. It may seem a rather trivial thing, but these days in which everyone is presumed to be an illegal downloader and the 'rightsholder police' can threaten lawsuits on a whim, the ability to produce valid proof of ownership is powerful. "Why, no, I did not pirate that game - in fact, here is a copy of my proof of purchase certificate (digitally signed and verifiable as authentic by downloading GoG's public verification key). As you can see, your honor, I have the right to possess a copy of the game. The plaintiff has no case." I tried a few times on the forums to advocate that they provide some sort of distinct proof of purchase, whether a signed 'digital receipt' of some sort, or even a nicely formatted pdf document that provided proof of ownership, but nobody was interested.

Other areas they might have explored: tangible media (for an extra fee) and gifting (with on-demand shipping of hard copies ready for wrapping). The former would be great for those that want a disk for backup/security purposes, or nice graphics and a case. The latter would be useful for giving 'Cousin Bob who loved Psychonauts but can't play his copy on the new PC' a cool gift for christmas that you could wrap up and put under the tree. GoG did gift certificates or somesuch thing, as I recall, but that is just no substitute for something that can be unwrapped and admired. Maybe the answer is to partner with someone like Amazon who has the infrastructure to target a broad audience and could properly sell the DRM-free message, as well as produce and ship tangible media at reasonable cost for those that want to purchase gifts.

I'm not the same AC you responded to, but you would be surprised how many people really do live as your list suggests.

"Which is why you have given up on paying for broadband (you're typing this at the library, right?)"

I happen to consider my $30/mo broadband along the lines of electricity and water and such.It's really not all that expensive really, when you opt to not get the cable TV packages that usually come bundled up front.

", don't have a cell phone, don't drink alchohol or eat out, only have one pair of shoes, no TV, no camera, don't by games or music or go to movies,"

I have a cell phone for work, which work pays half of.Outside of that, no, I do not drink alcohol, eat out, I do have one pair of shoes, NO tv, no camera, do not buy or listen to music, and rarely buy games anymore*.

" and work a second job evenings and weekends so that you can save up some money, right?"

That is the only one you got me on. I do not have a second job.Unfortunately due to medical issues, I literally don't have time for nor the energy for a second job.Between my first job, getting to/from it, and sleep, I have maybe 4-5 hours a day of 'free time' for myself, the majority of which I am feeling too crappy during to do anything.

My * above on the buying games rolls back to GOG.com. Someone posted a Google cache link, and I noticed they had fallout 1 and 2 for $6 each. I do already own 1, but not 2 or 3 (Not that my PC would play 3 too well)I wouldn't consider $6 for fallout 2 to be an outrageous expenditure for the tiny amount of joy it would give me.

Sadly I had not known of this site until now. Odds are by the time they come back up and start selling games again (Unless by some miracle they make it back by mid week as they hint at) it could very well be too late.

One game I would love to have, and would be able to pay up to $10 for it, would be AD&D Torment Planescape. This seems like the kind of site that would have it, and my price hope might even come true.

Considering the other option is to pirate it, I do find it very insulting that you feel someone such as myself should be forced to do without even a tiny amount of joy such a game would bring, simply because my income has taken a huge hit in the past couple years and I haven't yet resorted to eating boiled leather after kicking myself off the internet.

Really, what kind of point are you trying to make?That people such as myself in this kind of situation don't deserve Any type of happiness or fun until we hit rock bottom?

I guess the point of my post is that you really do come off as an elitist asshole, and just because you might be better off than many others out there, does not at all make you a better person.

The stunt is in shutting down suddenly, without warning, and, apparently, in the middle of a sale. If this was planned, it's a stunt. They could have announced ahead of time, even just a day or a week ahead of time, that they'd be shutting down for a period before reopening. Hell, they could have announced ahead of time that they were shutting down permanently, and probably gotten some kind of fire-sale/goodbye-sale revenue.

Doing this suddenly produces shock and probably some panic from long-time customers, and that's why, if it was planned, it's a stunt.

Because DOSBox sucks the big wet titty when it comes to setting it up yourself, with lots of hit or miss crap, and compatibility mode doesn't work on x86 Ring 0 DRM? let me compare DOSBox with GoG with a game I owned and re-bought from GoG when they first offered it...Redneck Rampage. with DOSBox it was 1.-deal with Build engine patch which did NOT like x64, 2.-try different settings trying to get sound stable, 3.-have it CTD more often than not, as well as random lockups.

Now lets compare that to the GoG Redneck Rampage DOSBox experience. 1.-download game, all patches and expansions already preloaded. 2.-run install, which is "clicky clicky". 3.-play game perfectly on windows 7 x64 with no hassles.

See the difference? I have bought a bunch of older games like RR and Fallout from GoG simply because they remove all the hassles and make it all just click n' run. I only hope GoG comes back so I can load up on the older games like Blood I hadn't picked up yet. But believe me the GoG experience was well worth it, even on newer games. I bought King's Bounty: The Legend but when I switched to x64 I never could seem to get it to run (my guess, shitty DRM) but the GoG version? Ran beautifully OOTB. If any GoG developers read this, thanks. Your site was the first and often only site I went to when I was bored and wanted a new game. you WILL be missed.

It's wrong to do this kind of poor bloody marketing stunts. Very angry at GOG now, probably having a stroke soon.
I would expect a "big announcement" like GOG Beta Closed / GOG Release 1 Opened. Anticipated by the fact that their sale closed down at 11:59 AM on Sunday (from memory). I was a bit surprised because usually sales close down on Monday.

He admits to never having used steam and yet declares he will never use it.

Used, dude, not seen.

We could equally ask why most have a prejudice against dying, never having "tried it?" Of course, people generally come to that conclusion because they've witnessed it and/or heard anecdotes about it. Fact is, direct experience and/or experimentation is often a bad way to form an opinion.

Or we could try heroin together, just to be sure, right?;^)

What the GP expressed is called a "preference," as in, "I will never try sushi because I am afraid of the potential bacteria/contamination issues." A sushi fan can reassure the person of the hygienic nature of the food to no end, but the person has a reasoned aversion based on fact (uncooked food can carry food-borne illness) which is, in the view of a sushi fan, unreasonable.

Such a fan has a prejudice against facts, however, because he's conflating facts with opinion. In the GP's Steam case, "I don't like the idea of needing a network connection to acquire games," is enough. It is factual, as Steam requires it. "My catalog could be cut off arbitrarily with no remedy" passes muster, too, as it is a part of the user agreement.

These are facts.

It is your opinion that it is unreasonable to believe that these facts will come to any great losses, and you are likely to be correct, but that is not a fact, it is merely presumption.

Prejudice happens when it is a known fact that what the person believes is utterly untrue or distorted, and they don't realize it because they are unwilling to find out, or even believe accounts refuting their prejudice. I really doubt, after all these years of Steam being around, that anyone is stalking the net badmouthing Steam having never seen or understood it.

Give me a break. The GP has a preference for an alternate means of game purchase. Those options exist and he's willing to pay more for it, and that's the end of it. It isn't remotely prejudice, just because you disagree.

I'm not sure anyone has advocated advertising and marketing to be completely senseless and illegitimate means of promotion. Generally, people have a negative backlash for FALSE advertising, violations of user privacy and general badness. I'm fine with commercials and marketing campaigns as long as its clean good fun.

For your second point we are going back full circle here on the musicians and writers concept. I don't have an issue with someone making a good or great living at what they are doing nor using a publishing service. However, if said publishing service were to do things like fix prices or shit on everyone in the name of making a dollar I might be upset.

Oh crap, third point, games and we are back to the same theme. I don't have a problem purchasing games and I have already made a few this month. (Though mostly used because I like bargains) However, the complaint is not around game publishers, but reallly crappy drm. This one is basically a trade off and I don't really believe drm brings any benefit to the table. Name any major title or major protection mechanism and I can show you where to download a mostly functional copy. In some cases it is a fully functional title because the release is a near perfect copy. (mostly functional generally refers to the cut scenes being removed to save space). The standard argument here is that DRM brings nothing to the but woe to the honest gamer. For smaller titles I think DRM could actually bring some benefit if they are experiencing rampant piracy, but again this is a trade off with risks to the current customer base. Just keep in mind that once a title reaches a certain popularity threshold a cracked copy will be available.

These are all complex issues with various beliefs from all sides. In fact the side we haven't addressed is from those who don't really care to purchase things and yes those people do exist. I would probably be in that camp if I were not horribly lazy. In my old age I don't care to scavenge forums or troubleshoot some crappy release. It's just so much easier to pay up and enjoy my purchase.

DRM doesn't stop piracy at all. It's not even a minor deterrent. It's not even on the radar if your intent is to steal the game. The only user who has to deal with it is the one naive enough to purchase it legally. Pirate copies are always DRM-free.

I always get irked when I see X indie game studio or whoever releases something DRM-free, and then a month or two later writes a big long-winded I-told-you-so blog post about how much the game was pirated and how DRM-free distributions just aren't practical. They write these articles as if had they used some form of DRM, the games wouldn't have been pirated as much. Why? Because spending 10 seconds to copy a patched exe file over the official one is so hard and clearly deterred so many people from stealing the game otherwise?

The whole notion that DRM helps the bottom line is rubbish. Studios use it because they have to, not because they want to. Because the brass/publishers think that they need to do something. Little do those individuals realize that they're not hurting the ones it's designed to hurt, but the legitimate users who are actually giving the studios money. I've seen tons of comments from developers who disagree completely with piracy but realize that DRM that only hurts their legitimate customers isn't the answer.

Sure, one day in the hypothetical future Valve's servers could disappear, leaving you unable to play your games any more. This is no different from non-DRM-encumbered games you own on physical media, which could stop working at any time due to loss of or damage to the CDs.

Wrong. there is one big difference.It['s a thing that is becoming more and more fashionable to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. It's called responsibility.

Looking after my copies of my games bought from GOG is my responsibility. I have all the tools at hand to protect against any loss of data. If one copy is lost or damaged, I have a backup copy (which I can then use to make another copy just in case I have another accident). If something happens to that data, it's my fault and my problem.

If Steam (or whatever other service) goes away or is taken away, it's someone else's fault but my problem.

couldnt agree more. The slashdot crowd whine like children about DRM but when a DRM-free site appears, they ignroe it and all get their games from torrents anyway.Typical fucking hypocrites. No wonder we have DRM and no wonder it is here to stay.

The moral of the story there would appear to be that the cloud has its flaws, that you're reliant on a provider not going under/shutting down a service, and that if a simple "downloads always available" service can't be kept open then an "authenticate your game" service for DRM is even less likely to survive.

Most people don't go looking for a pirated version at all, they just go out and buy it. A small, but possibly significant number, have problems with the game because of the DRM. They don't, for the most part, go, "Oh DRM sucks, I won't buy another game with DRM." Instead they go, "Game Publisher XYZ sucks, I won't buy another game from them." The question is, does the game publisher increase its sales by enough to justify the cost of DRM? The other important question is, how much does the inconvenience of DRM on this title hurt sales of future titles?
The publishers don't seem to be asking these questions. They don't seem to realize that most of those who pirate games are not their customers, have never been their customers and will never be their customers (except as the result of natural changes in period of life that are not positively affected by DRM).

At no point do they really say that GoG is gone. They mention change and that you will be able to re-download the games you have bought

You forgot this little part: "We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await."

How exactly do you misinterpret "we're closing down the service"? Does a landlord serve you an immediate eviction notice, and tell you that "sometimes next week you can stop by and get your things.", when he just wants to remodel the kitchen?

The thing is, by your very logic, DRM will never help sales. The people who wouldn't know where to look or wouldn't care to look for the pirated versions are never going to pirate anything, no matter how lax or strict the DRM; the people who are going to pirate the game will wait for a crack - which will come eventually - no matter how harsh the DRM might be. Putting ultra-restrictive DRM on a game is like putting a dozen deadbolts on a glass door: Anyone who wants in is just going to break the glass, and anyone who is deterred by the locks wasn't intending to break in anyways.